Legalcops – Legal Blog – Business Registrations & Tax Compliances

Hi there,

Prameela Ravindran v. P. Lakshmikutty Amma

Case namePrameela Ravindran v. P. Lakshmikutty Amma
CourtMadras High Court
BenchA Ramamurthi
Decided onPronounced on : June 16 , 2000
Relevant statuteInjunction against Publication of Defamatory Statement ,Law of Torts
CitationA.I.R 2001 Mad. 225

Facts and Procedural History of the case :

  • According to the facts of the case , the marriage between the applicant (Prameela Ravindran) and the deceased was disputed by the respondent (P. Lakshmikutty Amma) , who was the mother of the deceased.
  •  The  plaintiff married Ravindran in 1983 at Mangulam Parasakthi Temple , East Pattom , Trivandrum , Kerala.
  •  There was an agreement also on 16-12-1983 on the file of Sub-Registrar , Chalai , Kerala.
  • Ravindran died in October , 1998 and till then , none of the defendants disputed the validity of the marriage .
  • After the death , the respondents had resorted to dispute the validity of marriage in order to deprive her of the lawful share in the estate of her husband.
  • The respondent sent letters containing defamatory statements to various persons relating to marital status.

 Issues raised :

  • The point that arises for consideration is that whether the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour ?

Contentions by plaintiff :

  • The plaintiff contended that she was the wife of the deceased Ravindran.
  • In order to prove herself , She produced a marriage certificate dated 10.11.1984 issued by the temple authorities.
  • Apart from that she produced an agreement of marriage and also the L.I.C policy and passport wherein the applicant has been described as Ravindran’s wife.
  • Thus , the prima facie evidence andbalance of convenience were in favour of applicant.

Contentions by Respondent :

  • Learned Counsel for Respondent Contended that the deceased died as bachelor and he had not married anyone.

Principles laid down / Ratio Decendi :

If the statement is likely to injure the reputation of a person , the person making such statement can be restrained from doing so and injunction to the same can be granted.

Judgement :

  • The respondents are restrained from making any statements or sendind any letters to third parties regarding the status of the applicant pending disposal of the suit.
  • The marriage was held to be valid.

Dissected by Suyash Tripathi

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *